Ifs & Buts: Hilary, McCain, Romney

[TGHusker]

Thought I'd jump back on the politics forum now that football is slow. Here is a If & Buts situation:

 

I wonder what our country would look like if Hilary or McCain had won in 2008 or Romney in 2012 (or 2008). If you were to put on your 20/20 glasses what do you think Domestic and Foreign policy would look like?

 

I think all 3 candidates would have ended up fairly close on a couple of hot button issues: immigration & global warming,

 

My thoughts:

 

Hilary win 2008:

Domestically, I think we'd be better off. I think you would have seen more compromise by both the repubs and the Dems in Congress. Hilary would have been more pragmatic - learning from Bill's experience in 1994 forward. She would not have been a polarizing and there would have been more consensus on economic issues. The ACA would have been different and would not have been shoved down our collective throats. She would have frustrated conservatives with her liberal judicial appointments but I don't believe they would have been as radical. We would not have seen as many near dictatorial executive orders. I do not think there would be IRS or NSA scandals.

Foreign policy: The latest revelation that she opposed the Iraq war for political reasons doesn't bode well. Shows lack of core convictions. Her handling of the Benghazi situation (What does it matter?) gives me concern that she might not have been as good as I would have thought in that area - unless she appointed Bill as her Sec of State. I would still think she would have outperformed Obama due to experience (Ok Bill's experience - not sure how much experience she gained while in the Senate - but she was there longer than Obama). Overall, I think Hilary would have been more pragmatic instead of being an ideologue and her ratings would be well above Obama's at this point.

 

McCain in 2008:

Domestically: I don't see McCain as any domestic wizard. He would not have been as aggressive in transforming the country and probably would have maintain status quo - doing whatever the bankers told him to do. He would have been more conservative wt court appointments. I don't think there would be an IRS scandal but there may still be a NSA scandal. There would not have been an ACA.

Foreign policy: Bush years repeat. As a Neo-Con - no change. No imagination. And what is this about McCain and Lindsey Graham always giving joint press release and being the 2 repub senators always quoted by the press. Are they joined at the hip, lovers, or does Lindsey have a man crush on McCain??? My view of McCain has gone down since 2008.

McCain was a very disappointing nominee - a sacrifice lamb in the post GWB years.

 

Romney: 2008, 2012

Domestically: 2008 was really the Romney year but no repub was going to win after GWB along wt the media's love fest wt all things O. Romney would have been most effective if he was elected in 2008 and I think he would have been the best candidate that year. I also think he would have worked better with both sides of Congress and would have more of a calming presence in the WH - less polarizing. Electing Obama was to have been the cure for white guilt and and end to the racial divide - I think we've become more racial and polarizing since his election.

Foreign policy: the big unknown. He had very good executive experience - so he may have managed better. But he may have gone that neo-con path some. However, he did try to distance himself from GWB so he may not have been a clone like I think McCain would have been. So, this is the big unknown wt him.

 

In retrospect: Romney was not my # 1 candidate but I think we lost an opportunity to elect a very decent man who may have united us more than divide and would have been a good compromise between the left and the right. I think he would have govern more in the center, with a bit more right of center on social policy. I would also say, Hilary would have been a better choice if it came to her or Obama as our only choice (which technically it was as the Dem nomination basically sealed who was going to be pres - in the anti-GOP 2008).

[knapplc]

Note the Republican branding in this piece.

 

Obama

• IRS scandal
  
• NSA scandal
  
• "shoved down our throats"
  
• ideologue
  
• aggressive
  
• polarizing
  

 

Hillary Clinton

• lack of core convictions
  
• Benghazi
  

 

McCain

• Neo-Con
  
• Bush (label)
  
• conservative
  
• disappointing
  
• No imagination
  
• clone
  

 

Romney

• effective
  
• calming
  
• decent man
  
• compromise
  
• Center
  

 

Overall another Republican love-fest, much like what we've seen before. Obama is bad in so many ways, he was the worst of all choices each of the last two elections. Hillary was OK, but Benghazi. McCain has been ostracized and marginalized by the far right and is now portrayed as weak and has been dumped into the same bucket as W, despite the fact that W is still staunchly defended. Romney, having survived the primary by the skin of his teeth, is portrayed in loving and glowing terms.

 

Feels like I've read this before.

[Ulty]

I usually don't get too involved in political discussion, but I'll just comment on this thread for the heck of it...

 

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008. There was probably not a more polarizing Democrat at the time. The Republicans hated the Clinton name as much as Democrats had grown to hate the Bush name. I personally think she could have been a good president, and I like her, as much as the right has fought Obama tooth and nail on everything, I think it would have been worse against Hillary, at least during the first couple of years. In 2008, Obama was more of an unknown, a fresh-faced source of optimism, and Hillary was the bulldog who would take the fight to the Republicans.

 

Overall, I don’t really think that we’d be in that much of a different place as a nation if any one of these scenarios had turned out differently. Some of the feuds and controversies would be different, but the political theater would still just overshadow the real work being done on the ground, and any long-term impact from any of these potential presidents would not be felt for a few more years. We’d be pretty much the same as now, we just wouldn’t be arguing about Obamacare, some other crisis (manufactured or real) would take its place.

[TGHusker]

Note the Republican branding in this piece.

 

Obama

• IRS scandal
  
• NSA scandal
  
• "shoved down our throats"
  
• ideologue
  
• aggressive
  
• polarizing
  

Hillary Clinton

• lack of core convictions
  
• Benghazi
  

McCain

• Neo-Con
  
• Bush (label)
  
• conservative
  
• disappointing
  
• No imagination
  
• clone
  

Romney

• effective
  
• calming
  
• decent man
  
• compromise
  
• Center
  

Overall another Republican love-fest, much like what we've seen before. Obama is bad in so many ways, he was the worst of all choices each of the last two elections. Hillary was OK, but Benghazi. McCain has been ostracized and marginalized by the far right and is now portrayed as weak and has been dumped into the same bucket as W, despite the fact that W is still staunchly defended. Romney, having survived the primary by the skin of his teeth, is portrayed in loving and glowing terms.

 

Feels like I've read this before.

Sorry Knapp - you got me there. I didn't realize how much of my own bias got in the way of what I really wanted to post. I should have made it simpler instead of editorializing: Simply put how much different if any would the country look if any of those 3 were president. I accept your criticism humbly. The tone doesn't add to the discussion (you know I'm no Obama fan) but the stabs weren't needed.

 

Note: I do not defend GWB, I speak more highly of Hilary than McCain. I've never been a McCain fan, I respect his service but no fan. If Romney or McCain were elected or served as Sec of State, I'm sure I would have found similar things that were a disappointment - I will give you this - "lacking a core conviction" was too harsh - I was surprised by the reported reason she was against Iraq - not supporting it for political reasons. I don't have a love fest wt Romney - he wasn't my candidate. I do think however, his personality (regardless of policy differences) would have been more unifying. In the same way I think Hilary would have been more pragmatic (that is not meant in a bad way - it was Bill's strength) and thus more unifying as well - but in a different way. I think they both would have reached across to the other party.

[TGHusker]

I usually don't get too involved in political discussion, but I'll just comment on this thread for the heck of it...

 

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008. There was probably not a more polarizing Democrat at the time. The Republicans hated the Clinton name as much as Democrats had grown to hate the Bush name. I personally think she could have been a good president, and I like her, as much as the right has fought Obama tooth and nail on everything, I think it would have been worse against Hillary, at least during the first couple of years. In 2008, Obama was more of an unknown, a fresh-faced source of optimism, and Hillary was the bulldog who would take the fight to the Republicans.

 

Overall, I don’t really think that we’d be in that much of a different place as a nation if any one of these scenarios had turned out differently. Some of the feuds and controversies would be different, but the political theater would still just overshadow the real work being done on the ground, and any long-term impact from any of these potential presidents would not be felt for a few more years. We’d be pretty much the same as now, we just wouldn’t be arguing about Obamacare, some other crisis (manufactured or real) would take its place.

Hilary was polarizing - pre-election. But I think she had the political savvy to have been able to overcome that once elected. I think she would have done what Bill did which allows us to remember his term in better light - he worked wt the repub congress and they accomplished some good things. Of course, Bill never had the super majority that Obama (or Hilary would have) had, but I think there would been more reaching across the isle as she had spent more time in the Senate and in DC and probably had better relationships & respect wt some of the repubs because of her tenure.

[knapplc]

That wasn't really a criticism, just something that jumped out at me, starting with "shoved down our throats," that oft-used Right mantra. After reading that the other buzzwords/terms just started popping out.

 

 

I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. I'm done with Clintons in the White House. I thought she was a carpet-bagger when she "moved" to New York and I have no interest in her politics. I think she would have been much like any other career politician - cronyism rampantly running through her administration, just with different cronies than Obama or McCain or Romney.

 

I'm feeling ragingly cynical today, apparently. Gonna stop talking politics now before I get more depressed.

[rawhide]

Just for knapp

 

and Mr. Feinstein so Slick Willy doesn't have to be so forlorn

[BigRedBuster]

Just for knapp

 

and Mr. Feinstein so Slick Willy doesn't have to be so forlorn

 

 

Now....that made me laugh.

[TGHusker]

That wasn't really a criticism, just something that jumped out at me, starting with "shoved down our throats," that oft-used Right mantra. After reading that the other buzzwords/terms just started popping out.

 

 

I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. I'm done with Clintons in the White House. I thought she was a carpet-bagger when she "moved" to New York and I have no interest in her politics. I think she would have been much like any other career politician - cronyism rampantly running through her administration, just with different cronies than Obama or McCain or Romney.

 

I'm feeling ragingly cynical today, apparently. Gonna stop talking politics now before I get more depressed.

I agree that I'm done wt the 'Family' dynasties. Please no Jeb Bush or whoever else is coming along in that texas political tree of nephews. And it may be very true that she would have had as much cronyism as the next guy (it is in the water in DC). Yes, she was a C-B with that move to New York. From a governing point of view only, I think she had better skills then the current occupant in the WH - With that being said, I still would not have voted for her in a general election. I don't like throwing away my vote on a third party candidate but some day it may come to that as the 2 main parties have started to govern in similar ways even if their platforms are different in many ways.

[TGHusker]

Just for knapp

 

and Mr. Feinstein so Slick Willy doesn't have to be so forlorn

Good one!!

[BigRedBuster]

This makes me cry. I have absolutely no clue who I can support or like as a candidate any more. I don't like any of them mostly because they are tied to political party machines that are pathetically disgusting and I can't stomach supporting them anymore.

 

Imagine a world where you can actually trust what is said in the news, political figures and the people who work in the organizations that support them. It boggles my mind as to what could be accomplished and the common people would probably agree on more issues if they weren't influenced by this crap.

[carlfense]

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008.

I disagree as well. Not because Obama is more polarizing . . . but because whoever was nominated as the DNC candidate would be immediately vilified as the most extremist/communist/socialist/possibly evil person ever elected.

 

You're looking in the wrong place if you're looking to the Democratic candidates to explain the radicalization of the GOP.

[TGHusker]

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008.

I disagree as well. Not because Obama is more polarizing . . . but because whoever was nominated as the DNC candidate would be immediately vilified as the most extremist/communist/socialist/possibly evil person ever elected.

 

You're looking in the wrong place if you're looking to the Democratic candidates to explain the radicalization of the GOP.

Seems like a chicken or egg thing going on here: which came 1st? -- one side saying the Dems got radically left so therefore the reaction from the repubs to 'defend traditional values'. Then you got the Dems saying the repubs have become radically right - so they defend their progressive agenda. Goodness I'm not sure we can get humpty dumpty back together again.

[strigori]

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008.

I disagree as well. Not because Obama is more polarizing . . . but because whoever was nominated as the DNC candidate would be immediately vilified as the most extremist/communist/socialist/possibly evil person ever elected.

 

You're looking in the wrong place if you're looking to the Democratic candidates to explain the radicalization of the GOP.

Seems like a chicken or egg thing going on here: which came 1st? -- one side saying the Dems got radically left so therefore the reaction from the repubs to 'defend traditional values'. Then you got the Dems saying the repubs have become radically right - so they defend their progressive agenda. Goodness I'm not sure we can get humpty dumpty back together again.

Saying anything other than the Republicans have radically moved to the right is simply wrong. Positions that Ronald Reagan supported, and actually did, while in office are considered 'evil' and 'socialistic' by the same party now. Cap and Trade was a Republican idea, that is now too liberal. The area conservatives are screaming about the left moving to is in regards of gays and gay marriage and the acceptance of both, and the general embracing of the separation of church and state (more on that below) and that atheists are indeed people too.

 

The issues really got bad when in the 90's the Republicans decided to interweave themselves with the religious conservatives and not just a focus on money. By mainlining the zealots there was a rapid and undeniable move to the very far right.

 

Socially the nation as a whole has become more liberal and open, and it is driving the faction that sees 1952 as the perfect vision of America absolutely insane.

[carlfense]

I disagree that Hillary would not have been too polarizing had she won in 2008.

I disagree as well. Not because Obama is more polarizing . . . but because whoever was nominated as the DNC candidate would be immediately vilified as the most extremist/communist/socialist/possibly evil person ever elected.

 

You're looking in the wrong place if you're looking to the Democratic candidates to explain the radicalization of the GOP.

Seems like a chicken or egg thing going on here: which came 1st? -- one side saying the Dems got radically left so therefore the reaction from the repubs to 'defend traditional values'. Then you got the Dems saying the repubs have become radically right - so they defend their progressive agenda. Goodness I'm not sure we can get humpty dumpty back together again.

Saying anything other than the Republicans have radically moved to the right is simply wrong. Positions that Ronald Reagan supported, and actually did, while in office are considered 'evil' and 'socialistic' by the same party now. Cap and Trade was a Republican idea, that is now too liberal. The area conservatives are screaming about the left moving to is in regards of gays and gay marriage and the acceptance of both, and the general embracing of the separation of church and state (more on that below) and that atheists are indeed people too.

 

The issues really got bad when in the 90's the Republicans decided to interweave themselves with the religious conservatives and not just a focus on money. By mainlining the zealots there was a rapid and undeniable move to the very far right.

 

Socially the nation as a whole has become more liberal and open, and it is driving the faction that sees 1952 as the perfect vision of America absolutely insane.

. . . not to mention the whole individual mandate thing . . .